How Killarney should be setup. This is Driftwood.

Thank you for reporting this issue. The Department of Public Works will now begin its investigation into the matter.

Read the engineers report put out by DPW. There is a reason vehicles do not have a stop sign. State law, pedestrians have the right of way, cars must yield. Cyclists must stop, vehicles have the right of way. Don't like it, go speak in Montpelier

As Burlingtonian suggested the City rebuilt all intersections and confirmed all signage on rehabilitated sections to meet all transportation standards and agreements along the Right of Way and communicated to the public about those reports as part of the extensive rehabilitation project along the bike path. The study can be viewed here: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/DPW/TransportationProjects/2014%20Bike%20Path%20Intersection%20Scoping%20Study%20FINAL.pdf

This issue is closed. ~Parks

This is the next block up at Driftwood. How is this different?

Each intersection is different throughout the corridor and in this case two separate easements that restricted the City from executing preferred standards in different ways.

AFAIK it's different because the folks in the million dollar houses think they are more important than the rest of the public so refused to update the original easement despite the fact that ROW would clearly be different if not for concessions made 30+ years ago.

It's not about vehicles vs pedestrians right of way, it's cycle vehicles and car vehicles. The cycles are using a throughway, the cars are using a driveway, so it seems quite clear the driveway should have the stop signs. I think about this whenever I pass by here, which is usually on foot.

Earlier comments say it is how it is because of standards and laws: "it's out of our control." Then, asked why the next intersection is different, it's because each intersection is different. That's why I think we can compare this driveway to this section of path, and give the path the right of way.

From the report above referenced by Burlington Parks... the consultants who analyzed this crossing recommended removing the stops signs from the path.

So if "two separate easements restricted the City from executing preferred standards in different ways" despite what the posted report said, then I guess the deal that was cut with the landowners means that path users get stop signs... even if they make no sense & don't meet standards, because that is what the property owners wanted?

Good, it can be just like every single intersection on the rec path. Bicycles have to stop. Why have 1 outlier that people can forget about. It is best that cyclists follow state law and stop at all intersections.

@burlingtonian... You're completely missing the point. Literally 100 yards North, there is a public road that crosses the bike path. Traffic on that road has to stop for walk/bike traffic on the path, because that was the recommendation made by the study. At this private driveway that sees even less car traffic, it does not make sense for bikes or pedestrians to stop (as confirmed by the recommendations in the study, see above). Nobody is asking for a cookie cutter approach here... just questioning why Parks can't do what the study recommended in this case, since it seems like the private landowners are treated differently with their driveway when compared to a public street that is in close proximity.

And I think that the stop signs at driftwood should be reversed and follow state law.

Burlingtonian, which "state law"? Please reference the specific statue supporting your claim so we can all have a look.

The one that seems relevant to me is what to do at stop signs, 23 V.S.A. § 1048(a)(b). That is stop. Where they are installed facing the street (like also at North Ave Ext) traffic there stops and yields right of way. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're twisting words RJ. Read the engineers report.

@Burlingtonian - are you referring to this report that BTV Parks shared?

https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/DPW/TransportationProjects/2014%20Bike%20Path%20Intersection%20Scoping%20Study%20FINAL.pdf

Page 21: "The primary near term solution is to eliminate the stop signs on the path. It is recommended that the stop signs be moved to the roadway instead."

Correct, but that contradicts state law. Read the rest of the report

The report states that "Existing state laws regarding the right of way between bicyclists in a road crossed by a shared use path and vehicles on the roadway are somewhat vague. " And that statement is backed up by the way Driftwood Lane is setup. Your argument is weak, this issue is clearly a grey one, and your attitude that we should blindly uphold vague state laws is counter to bettering our city. Don't tell RJ that he's twisting words while you're simply choosing to only pay attention to the words that backup what is clearly your personal opinion that bikes shouldn't get the right of way despite common sense, statistics, practicality & safety.

Joclatis, do you live near one of the intersections? It was bad enough years ago they ignored their stop signs. Now that the path has STOP written on the path, cyclists are actually following the rules and I hope it stays that way!

I'm not in favor of changing any intersections to accommodate cyclists.

I do. I've lived in the NNE for 10 years and used the path longer. I think it was a missed opportunity not to give the right of way to Greenway users at all NNE intersections.

The reality of these intersections is that vehicles feel inclined to stop and do so even if cyclists or pedestrians stop at the intersections themselves. The result is a confusing situation for everyone and the signage implemented at these intersections is causing an unpleasant experience for motorists and path users alike.

Your position is abundantly clear but lacking in substance. Do you just not like cyclists? Have you ever used the path yourself? What is your motivation here to refute your neighbors experiences in light of upholding a state law?

"I'm not in favor of changing any intersections to accommodate cyclists."

Right, you have an intractable bias that is immune to common sense, like that the thoroughfare that sees SUBSTANTIALLY MORE traffic should get priority, which is how these things are typically handled. This case is ONLY an exception due to historical issues.

P.s., directly from the report you keep claiming to have read...

"The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 9B.03 provides the following
guidance for placement of stop vs. yield signs on shared -use paths:

“Guidance:
Where conditions require path users, but not roadway users, to stop or yield, the STOP or YIELD sign should be placed or shielded so that it is not readily visible to road users.

When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared-use path/roadway
intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following:

A. Relative speeds of shared-use path and roadway users,
B. Relative volumes of shared-use path and roadway traffic, and
C. Relative importance of shared-use path and roadway.

Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high-volume shared-use path crossing a low-volume street, or to a regional shared-use path crossing a minor collector street.

When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable."

Which clearly shows that priority may in fact be given to the path via traffic controls on the roadway, as has been done at several other intersections.

Well there is this part:
The laws are different for cyclists however. The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition compiled the Vermont Bicycling Laws and within their summary they state that “Bicyclists do not have the right-of-way in crosswalks under state law unless they dismount and walk.”

So the cyclists should have stop signs and cyclists need to stop at them.

Joclatis,
My motivation? I just don't like the cyclists in this town. I don't like their entitled behavior, the lack of accountability, and their inability to follow traffic laws. Maybe if I saw a change for the better Id feel different.

Have you considered moving to a town with less of us pesky, entitled cyclists who certainly aren't also your neighbors, who also drive cars, pay taxes and want to make Burlington a better place for everyone to live?

Acknowledged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preseault_v._United_States - little eagle bay
This is a link to the reason why the greenway has stop signs at that intersection. The City does not own the land. We do have a thirty plus year easement, whose terms were written very long ago as RJ commented. When the City was attempting to renegotiate this easement agreement with the owners and their representatives, the owners requested larger stop signs with flashing lights, no access for maintenance equipment/ vehicles, trailers or otherwise through this section. After a year plus of negotiating, what you see is what we got.
Driftwood Lane - This section of path is owned by VTrans. The City has a lease, that could not be negotiated, however, they agreed to switch the stop signs to yield signs. This section is also complicated because a portion of Driftwood Lane is not an accepted City street and does not attain the standards of such. There is still the debate of whether to formally accept the street via DPW's process.

Joclatis,

What would be the fun in moving? This is where I have lived for many years.

Burlingtonian, it’s not a crosswalk. A crosswalk is a pedestrian (explicitly) right of way to cross a road.

Your quote about crosswalks does night apply to the shared use recreation path.

It actually does, the quote was from the engineers study regarding the Rec Path. The Rec path is viewed as a crosswalk for pedestrians. Pedestrians explicitly have the right of way which is why vehicles MUST stop for a pedestrian. Cyclists are viewed as another vehicle and must yield to cars.

Based on our prior posts this issue went through litigation and the decision will not be changed. Issue is closed